The Rape of Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11-12)

Is stating that David didn't have an affair with Bathsheba but raped her ambiguous or even highly inflammatory? 

I stated that it was rape on twitter a couple of days ago and got a similar response to those I have received when I've voiced this opinion in other forums. Some outrage, some inquisitiveness and a good deal of agreement.

A quick Google reveals I am far from the only person to have thought this. There is a good exploration of the passage here though I find it interesting that the author finds it necessary to explore whether Bathsheba was of 'good character', I am not sure this is a relevant question even though the courts of Britain seemingly still think so.

I was also grateful to be informed via twitter that the ancient Jewish commentators stress Bathsheba's lack of consent. Although somehow this too center's on her character which again I cannot see as relevant, nor can I see evidence that the text feels it is so. 

There are 3 main arguments I have for considering this as rape:

1.) Nowhere in scripture is Bathsheba ever held responsible for what happens. (That in my view should settle it if God doesn't hold her accountable then God obviously knows she did not consent).

2.) He is a king and he summons her to the palace - are we really saying she had the freedom to say no?

3.) The prophetic challenge of Nathan again hold's David fully accountable and compares his actions to the slaughtering of a lamb. 

Also interesting to note is Nathan indicates that the tragedies of Davids family are a result of his sin (2 Samuel 12: 10-12) and that when Ammon rapes Tamar it is David who summons her to the palace. Deliberate parallel maybe?

I think the burden of proof should actually be on those who want to claim this as a narrative of adultery rather than rape. Could I point out that if your bible has the word adultery in it at this point it is a chapter heading put in by the translators and not part of the original text.

I am not suggesting that the original authors would have necessarily named this crime as rape but the way they constructed the narrative was intended to make it clear that their was no consent or even opportunity for consent on Bathsheba's part, and I call that rape.

Is part of the resistance to name this as rape is that we want to divide men into the men who protect women and the monsters who devour them, whereas the lived experience of many women is that they are not separate. Home is the most dangerous place on earth for women.

I love the word of God and am desperately trying to stay evangelical but that means a radical re-read of passages like these lost under millennium of patriarchal interpretation. That Bathsheba was raped is a credible evangelical reading of the text. It is also a vitally healing reading.

#Ibelieveher

Sexual Politics of Esther: Rape

Sigh.

I am depressed that it appears that sections of the church don't understand what consent is. Especially as the notion of free will and free choice is central to our understanding of who God is. This is the main reason it has taken me 3 weeks to write this post.

There is a lot of sexual violence in the old testament. And as was said the bible does talk about it plainly. But we do not see plainly, we see through a glass darkly and our perception is coloured by our underlying assumptions and our circumstance. So yes there are incidences in the bible where rapists use physical force like in the rape of Dinah. We see these as sexual violence because they fit with our narrative of rape not because that is the bibles narrative of rape.

So the word rape is not used to describe Esther's encounter with Xerxes and indeed all the other women who where 'brought' and 'put' in the harem. I don't think I am reading loads into the text if I conclude that they didn't do this voluntarily. They didn't 'come' to the palace. 

It may not have been called rape by the person who penned the book of Esther but it is clearly not consensual which therefore makes it rape. 

Is maybe the problem people have with Esther is the book does not define her as a victim? She doesn't get rescued, she's not pitiful and pathetic so she doesn't fit our perception of how someone who has been raped behaves.

So we are left with a problem in order to cast this as consensual we have to either construct a loving relationship between Esther and Xerxes as many have done, or cast Esther as 'totally up for it'. 

There is so much sexual violence in Esther, from Vashti to the eunuchs to the harem to Esther. It is very clear to those who will see it. Esther is not the only place where sexual violence is reported by the bible but not read by many Christians. David did not commit adultery with Bathsheba he raped her. But Esther should be able to operate as a piece of consciousness raising literature.

It is true it talks very little Esther's motivations or feelings. There is much about her we do not know. But why should that matter. In its almost pantomime like way the book holds the kierarchy of the world up to display and gives a very clear account of what happened and clearly in this patriarchal world there is a lot of sexual violence.

Whether Esther was a godly woman at this point to me is irrelevant. Even asking this question is problematic. Especially when we were told in sermon 1 that there aren't good people and bad people there's people and Jesus. 

Esther was raped because she did not have the freedom to consent. Saying this is not the case and then explaining why she was not 100% godly implies (whether meant or not) that its not real rape unless the women is a picture of femininity. It is essentially the same as saying - but look her facebook has loads of pictures of her in short skirts and she once had sex with some guy  I know. 

If we're honest Esther just doesn't fit our princess narratives she explodes them and we have to deal with that. Esther was raped and Sleeping Beauty and snow white where sexually assaulted.

Sexual Politics of Esther: Fatherhood

"How many of you dad's read this story with me and freak out?" 

"If your single you don't understand women"

I hadn't originally planned for this blog. But there was too much problematic stuff about what it means to be a parent last Sunday. I almost don't know where to start. 

I've always found it fascinating that Mordachi is so widely believed to be Esther's uncle. Go check out the passage. He's Esther's cousin, not that it matters that much he is clearly her adoptive parent. I just wonder where and why the misconception arouse and does it have anything to do with the need to fit Mordachi and Esther into a 'father leader'/'obedient daughter' model. There was a great piece about the mutuality in the relationship between Mordachi and Esther here at CBE. 

I wanted to avoid commenting too directly on the content of what Mark Driscoll said in his preaching series but I think on this subject it is unavoidable. The problem I have with a lot of his rhetoric is that he tells people how they should feel and leaves no room in his construct for a diversity of life experience and emotional response. He very directly told single men that they would have no ability to understand what was problematic about young women being gathered into a hareem only Dad's could possibly understand. So single men are incapable of empathy or sexual integrity. 

Dad's however are capable of and overflowing with murderous rage. Anger the only other emotion men are allowed to feel besides lust in these 'masculinity' constructs, is how fathers will respond, no complexity of emotion allowed just plain rage. And Fathers only - mothers are not mentioned at all despite the biblical text comparing God's protective love to that of a mother bear.

And the rage is not a response to violence and oppression of a dearly loved human being - but an anger at another man taking what belongs to you. As demonstrated by Mr Driscoll's possessive advice about what men should do if their daughters are dating men they don't like. They apparently have the right to dump them. All the while no mention of mothers or sons. 

Mordachi should have just plain said no. Now while I don't disagree that it would be great if the people of Persia as individuals or a collective had resisted this oppression, I also assume that Mordachi didn't or perceived he didn't have a choice. But this doesn't fit Driscoll's paradigm of what it means to be a man, nor does it fit his agenda of policing men's behavior and sense of identity. 

He appeals to the case of Adam our 'first father' (is he ever referenced as such in the bible?) who's sin was apparently a sin of omission, that he did nothing (funny I thought he took and ate!) in the same way he argues Mordachi didn't prevent Esther from going to the palace and failed as a father.

Through the whole thing he set up a paradigm of women as the property of men, particularly their fathers. It is the model of the punitive, controlling father rather than what I believe to be far more biblical: the nurturing parent.

While he's berating Xerxes for acting as god he wants fathers to extract complete obedience from their families. 

Coming soon: Sexual Politics of Esther: Sexual violence

Sexual Politics of Esther: Vashti

Can I suggest that 'Did Vashti do the right thing?' is not the relevant question. But it is a question that exposes the inconsistencies and internal errors of complementarianism. 

Is Vashti a rebellious and stubborn woman who should have submitted to her husband? Is she a heroic 'lady' who judges correctly when to disobey her husband.

Vashti throws up a problem for a patriarchal view of the world because while women are devoid of any autonomy, authority or power they are also held accountable for the behaviors of men, and there is an internal contradiction there. 

There has been a lot of comment on twitter about some of the mental gymnastics complementarians have to go through to match their practices with their theology. In the first sermon from Mars hill on Esther we were informed that the best commentary on Esther was written by a women. I struggle to understand how it is OK for her to write and a man to read this book when it would not be OK for her to speak the exact same words from a platform - or maybe it would if it were a 'lecture'.

One of the difficulties I have with the presentation of Esther we are currently getting is the need to enforce 'the prayer of salvation' on it. I prefer to read the book of Esther as first and foremost a history book rather than a gospel narrative. This way I can start from the place that Vashti did what she did and in her story seek what can I learn about the world and my God. 

So while as an egalitarian I don't need to ask if Vashti did the right thing complementarians are forced to ask. I have to say what was said last Sunday was not what I was expecting but it was still used as an argument to police women's behavior. 

The obey your husband - unless he's asking you to sin, as I have argued elsewhere, necessitates a very narrow view of sin, essentially restricting it to the ten commandments, as opposed to any situation in which you follow your own or someone else will other than God. (We were told 3 times women are instructed to obey their husbands despite it never ever ever saying that in scripture, even with the most literal view)

Informing women that they must say no to there husbands if he's leading them into sin, while simultaneously requiring them to have no language of no leaves them in a very anxious place. Whether Complementarians decide Vashti did the right thing or the wrong thing is kinda irrelevant because the interpretation still requires wives to figure out how to relate to their husbands rather than how to relate to God. 

So women if your husband pressurises you into wearing 'revealing clothing' or if you in any way give into any of their coercive behavior, it is entirely your fault for not sufficiently being the guardians of men's behavior. Oh but they are still in charge.

Vashti was put in a situation where she had to face potential sexual violence or defy the most powerful man in the world. I do not consider this free choice and consequently am more concerned about analysing the behaviors of those that put her in that situation than hers. 

Oh and we were also briefly informed that Xerxes shouldn't have been attempting to publicly shame his wife sexually.... interesting.